Sendil Kumar vs State By Konanakunte Police Station

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J

This petition is filed by the sole accused under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grant bail in S.C.No.912/2017 (Crime No.100/2017 of Konanakunte Police Station) pending on the file of XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, registered for offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 302, 3260 and 307 of Indian Penal Code.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent - State.

Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that, there was no any intention on the part of the petitioner to commit murder of the deceased persons and caused injury to C.W.1 and C.W.2. The said incident has taken place in a sudden provocation as C.W.1 - the wife of this petitioner refused to come along with him to his house. The petitioner is in judicial custody since last about nine (9) years. The prosecution has examined all the charge sheet witnesses and it is for the petitioner/accused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. With these, he prayed to allow the petition.

Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent would contend that, the fact of the petitioner buying the knife and assaulting mother-in-law and father-in-law and killing them and also assaulting C.W.1 and C.W.2 with the knife causing stab injury itself indicates the intention of the petitioner that there are two deaths and two injured persons. Two injured persons namely C.W.1 and C.W.2 have sustained stab injuries on their stomach. There are eye witnesses to the incident. The complainant is the wife of the petitioner. The prosecution has examined all the prosecution witnesses and it is for the petitioner to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. With these, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for parties, the Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has married C.W.1 about four (4) years prior to the date of incident. As the petitioner was addicted to alcohol and used to quarrel with C.W.1 for small issues and giving physical and mental harassment, she came to her parents' house about eight (8) months prior to the date of incident and started residing with them. The petitioner also came and started residing with them. On 03.03.2017 the petitioner has purchased knife from the shop of C.W.6 and at about 08.30 p.m. came to the house of the deceased persons and assaulted them. The petitioner assaulted his mother-in-law - Smt. Murugamma and caused her death and also assaulted his father-in-law - Sri. Kumar with a knife and caused his death. C.W.1 who came to rescue the deceased persons, at that time he assaulted her with a knife on her stomach. At that time, C.W.2 came to rescue them and the petitioner assaulted him with a knife on his stomach and caused severe injuries. The case involves double murder and attempt to murder of two persons namely C.W.1 and C.W.2. There are eye witnesses to the incident. The prosecution has examined all the prosecution witnesses and it is for the petitioner/accused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that, the petitioner's counsel has not cross-examined the prosecution witnesses and his present advocate has filed application seeking recall of prosecution witnesses for cross-examination and it has been allowed and the defence counsel has to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. Considering the said aspect, there is no delay on the part of the prosecution and it is the petitioner who has caused delay in disposal of the case by not cross-examining the prosecution witnesses and filing application seeking recall of prosecution witnesses for cross-examination. Considering the said aspects, there is a prima-facie case against the petitioner for offences alleged against him. The offence alleged against him is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. If the petitioner is granted bail, he will flee from justice.

Considering all the above aspects, the petitioner has not made out any grounds for grant of bail. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.